XI.
Haec vulgo iactata super id quod nullo auctore certo firmantur prompte refutaveris. quis enim mediocri prudentia, nedum Tiberius tantis rebus exercitus, inaudito filio exitium offerret, idque sua manu et nullo ad paenitendum regressu? quin potius ministrum veneni excruciaret, auctorem exquireret, insita denique etiam in extraneos cunctatione et mora adversum unicum et nullius ante flagitii compertum uteretur? sed quia Seianus facinorum omnium repertor habebatur, ex nimia caritate in eum Caesaris et ceterorum in utrumque odio quamvis fabulosa et immania credebantur, atrociore semper fama erga dominantium exitus. ordo alioqui sceleris per Apicatam Seiani proditus tormentis Eudemi ac Lygdi patefactus est. neque quisquam scriptor tam infensus extitit ut Tiberio obiectaret, cum omnia alia conquirerent intenderentque. mihi tradendi arguendique rumoris causa fuit ut claro sub exemplo falsas auditiones depellerem peteremque ab iis quorum in manus cura nostra venerit ne divulgata atque incredibilia avide accepta veris neque in miraculum corruptis antehabeant.
11.
Such hearsay, bandied among the populace but ignored by all historians, may be easily laid to rest. What man indeed, even of average intelligence, let alone Tiberius with his vast experience of the world, would offer death to a son with his own hand, without leaving himself a chance to reconsider his decision? Why was the servant who had brought the poison not subjected to torture, in order to arrive at the source of the crime? Why did Tiberius not reserve some of that cautious hesitancy, so habitual in him even towards mere strangers, for his only son, until then free from any suspicion of misconduct? But since popular opinion held that no villainy was too great for Sejanus to undertake, credit was given to the most absurd and monstruous stories, aided also by Tiberius’ excessive partiality for Sejanus and the general dislike for both the emperor and his favorite. Besides, the demise of the powerful is inevitably surrounded by rumors that are always far more tragic than the truth. Be that as it may, the real plan of the murder was revealed in detail by Sejanus’ wife Apicata and by the confession of both Eudemus and Lygdus under torture. No historians have been so inimical to Tiberius as to attribute this crime to him, though they were exacting investigators and critics of all the rest. The reason I have reported and condemned these rumors was to demonstrate by a clear example the mendacity of idle and unverified gossip and to persuade those into whose hands this work of mine may come not to prefer incredible stories that are avidly swallowed to honest accounts of the facts, unmarred by any addition intended to create sensational effects.
XII.
Ceterum laudante filium pro rostris Tiberio senatus populusque habitum ac voces dolentum simulatione magis quam libens induebat, domumque Germanici revirescere occulti laetabantur. quod principium favoris et mater Agrippina spem male tegens perniciem adceleravere. nam Seianus ubi videt mortem Drusi inultam interfectoribus, sine maerore publico esse, ferox scelerum et, quia prima provenerant, volutare secum quonam modo Germanici liberos perverteret, quorum non dubia successio. neque spargi venenum in tres poterat, egregia custodum fide et pudicitia Agrippinae impenetrabili. igitur contumaciam eius insectari, vetus Augustae odium, recentem Liviae conscientiam exagitare, ut superbam fecunditate, subnixam popularibus studiis inhiare dominationi apud Caesarem arguerent. atque haec callidis criminatoribus, inter quos delegerat Iulium Postumum, per adulterium Mutiliae Priscae inter intimos aviae et consiliis suis peridoneum, quia Prisca in animo Augustae valida anum suapte natura potentiae anxiam insociabilem nurui efficiebat. Agrippinae quoque proximi inliciebantur pravis sermonibus tumidos spiritus perstimulare.
12.
Notwithstanding all this, Tiberius delivered from the rostra his son’s eulogy, which the senate and the people received with the garb and the plaintive sounds of grief, more for the sake of appearances than with a loving heart, nay, even with secret joy at seeing the house of Germanicus regain strength. In fact, these signs of popular favor and the hardly suppressed hopes of Agrippina speeded up the family’s downfall. As soon as Sejanus saw Drusus’ death go unpunished for those responsible and that the people’s mourning was rather lukewarm, he grew wildly eager for more crimes. Since the first part of his plan had succeeded, he began to excogitate ways to rid himself of Germanicus’ sons, the unchallenged heirs to the throne. He obviously could not distribute poison to all three, given the staunch loyalty of their attendants and the unassailable virtue of the mother. Thus, he concentrated his attacks on the proud, uncompromising spirit of Agrippina by enlisting the Augusta’s enduring aversion to her and the recent complicity in crime of Livia, in order to have both women characterize her to the emperor as someone hankering after the empire on the strength of her numerous offspring and the warm favor of the people. Sejanus effected these schemes using the cunning of practiced muckrakers, among them a certain Julius Postumus (a man well suited to his plan) to turn the Augusta into a bitter enemy of her grandson’s wife. Postumus was brought in close association with the Augusta by an affair he had with Mutilia Prisca, since the latter held great sway over the old matriarch — who by nature lived in fear of losing her power – and was well placed to prejudice her against Agrippina. Moreover, even persons close to Agrippina were prevailed upon to goad her haughty temper with tendentious suggestions.
XIII.
At Tiberius nihil intermissa rerum cura, negotia pro solaciis accipiens, ius civium, preces sociorum tractabat; factaque auctore eo senatus consulta ut civitati Cibyraticae apud Asiam, Aegiensi apud Achaiam, motu terrae labefactis, subveniretur remissione tributi in triennium. et Vibius Serenus pro consule ulterioris Hispaniae de vi publica damnatus ob atrocitatem morum in insulam Amorgum deportatur. Carsidius Sacerdos, reus tamquam frumento hostem Tacfarinatem iuvisset, absolvitur, eiusdemque criminis C. Gracchus. hunc comitem exilii admodum infantem pater Sempronius in insulam Cercinam tulerat. illic adultus inter extorris et liberalium artium nescios, mox per Africam ac Siciliam mutando sordidas merces sustentabatur; neque tamen effugit magnae fortunae pericula. ac ni Aelius Lamia et L. Apronius qui Africam obtinuerant insontem protexissent, claritudine infausti generis et paternis s adversis foret abstractus.
13.
Meanwhile Tiberius was not neglecting the affairs of state and sought comfort in his work, occupying himself with the court cases of citizens or the appeals from the allied nations. At his urging, the senate decided to come to the assistance of the city of Cybira in Asia and of Aegium in Achaia, reduced to ruin by an earthquake, by remitting their tribute for three years. Vibius Serenus, the proconsul of ulterior Spain, found guilty of public violence resulting from his fierce temper, was deported to the island of Amorgos. Carcidius Sacerdos, accused of having supplied grain to Tacfarinas, was absolved, as was Gaius Sempronius Gracchus of the same charge. His father had taken him to the island of Cercina as his companion in exile when he was still a young boy. Growing up among exiles and men without culture, he earned a living by engaging in some form of low trade in Sicily and Africa, yet he could not escape the risks to which rich and influential people were exposed. Had not two former governors of Africa, Aelius Lamia and Lucius Aponius, protected his innocence, he would have been undone by the noble name of his family and the misfortune of his father.
XIV.
Is quoque annus legationes Graecarum civitatium habuit, Samiis Iunonis, Cois Aesculapii delubro vetustum asyli ius ut firmaretur petentibus. Samii decreto Amphictyonum nitebantur, quis praecipuum fuit rerum omnium iudicium, qua tempestate Graeci conditis per Asiam urbibus ora maris potiebantur. neque dispar apud Coos antiquitas, et accedebat meritum ex loco: nam civis Romanos templo Aesculapii induxerant, cum iussu regis Mithridatis apud cunctas Asiae insulas et urbes trucidarentur. variis dehinc et saepius inritis praetorum questibus, postremo Caesar de immodestia histrionum rettulit: multa ab iis in publicum seditiose, foeda per domos temptari; Oscum quondam ludicrum, levissimae apud vulgum oblectationis, eo flagitiorum et virium venisse ut auctoritate patrum coercendum sit. pulsi tum histriones Italia.
14.
This year, like the preceding one, saw Greek cities send delegations to Rome. The citizens of Samos were seeking for the temple of Juno and those of Cos for that of Aesculapius our official approval of their ancient right of asylum. The Samians based their claim on the decree of the Amphictyonic Council, supreme arbiter of all affairs at the time the Greeks had gained control of the coastal areas of Asia after establishing cities in them. Those of Cos produced documents of equal antiquity and their temple had additionally claim to our gratitude for giving sanctuary to Roman citizens during the slaughter ordered by Mithridates in all the island and cities of Asia. Next on the senate’s agenda were the complaints of the praetors, ignored for a long time, in regard to the insolence of the players. Tiberius had at last brought up the matter in the senate, reporting that the players often behaved in a seditious manner, resulting in disturbances in the public sphere and immorality in private life. The Oscan stage-play, he said, once the cheap amusement of the masses, had become both so indecent and turbulent that the senate must intervene to put a stop to it. Thus, the players were banned from Italy.
XV.
Idem annus alio quoque luctu Caesarem adficit alterum ex geminis Drusi liberis extinguendo, neque minus morte amici. is fuit Lucilius Longus, omnium illi tristium laetorumque socius unusque e senatoribus Rhodii secessus comes. ita quamquam novo homini censorium funus, effigiem apud forum Augusti publica pecunia patres decrevere, apud quos etiam tum cuncta tractabantur, adeo ut procurator Asiae Lucilius Capito accusante provincia causam dixerit, magna cum adseveratione principis non se ius nisi in servitia et pecunias familiares dedisse: quod si vim praetoris usurpasset manibusque militum usus foret, spreta in eo mandata sua: audirent socios. ita reus cognito negotio damnatur. ob quam ultionem et quia priore anno in C. Silanum vindicatum erat, decrevere Asiae urbes templum Tiberio matrique eius ac senatui. et permissum statuere; egitque Nero grates ea causa patribus atque avo, laetas inter audientium adfectiones qui recenti memoria Germanici illum aspici, illum audiri rebantur. aderantque iuveni modestia ac forma principe viro digna, notis in eum Seiani odiis ob periculum gratiora.
15.
The same year afflicted Tiberius with a new loss, by depriving him of one of Drusus’ twins and equally by the death of a friend, Lucilius Longus. He was the sharer of all the adverse as well as of all his good fortunes, the sole member of the senate to be his companion during his retirement at Rhodes. For that reason, regardless of his humble family history, the senate decreed him a solemn funeral and a statue in the forum of Augustus at public expense. At this time all affairs of state were in the hands of the senate, a case in point being that of the procurator Lucilius Capito, who, accused by the province of Asia, had to defend himself before the curia. Tiberius forcibly denied having given him any authority except over the imperial slaves and revenues and stated that Capito had exceeded his mandate, if he had usurped the powers of a praetor by using military force, in which case the senate must hear the provincials. The trial was held and the defendant condemned. In appreciation of this act of justice and also for the punishment inflicted the previous year on Gaius Silanus, the communities of Asia vowed to erect a temple to Tiberius, to his mother, and to the senate. Permission was given to build. On their behalf Nero extended thanks to the senators and to his grandfather amid the joy and pleasant emotions of the audience, whose recent memory of Germanicus gave them the illusion of seeing and hearing him again in his son. Nero truly had the modest bearing and the grace of a prince, qualities all the more precious for the peril he was in, the deep antipathy of Sejanus towards him being common knowledge.
XVI.
Sub idem tempus de flamine Diali in locum Servi Maluginensis defuncti legendo, simul roganda nova lege disseruit Caesar. nam patricios confarreatis parentibus genitos tres simul nominari, ex quis unus legeretur, vetusto more; neque adesse, ut olim, eam copiam, omissa confarreandi adsuetudine aut inter paucos retenta (pluresque eius rei causas adferebat, potissimam penes incuriam virorum feminarumque; accedere ipsius caerimoniae difficultates quae consulto vitarentur) et quoniam exiret e iure patrio qui id flamonium apisceretur quaeque in manum flaminis conveniret. ita medendum senatus decreto aut lege, sicut Augustus quaedam ex horrida illa antiquitate ad praesentem usum flexisset. igitur tractatis religionibus placitum instituto flaminum nihil demutari: sed lata lex qua flaminica Dialis sacrorum causa in potestate viri, cetera promisco feminarum iure ageret. et filius Maluginensis patri suffectus. utque glisceret dignatio sacerdotum atque ipsis promptior animus foret ad capessendas caerimonias decretum Corneliae virgini, quae in locum Scantiae capiebatur, sestertium viciens, et quotiens Augusta theatrum introisset ut sedes inter Vestalium consideret.
16.
At about the same time, Tiberius intervened in the senate in relation to the choice of a new flamen to replace Servius Maluginensis who had just died, and also to introduce a new law for regulating such choice. He said that the custom of nominating three patricians from whom to elect the flamen, all required to be the issue of parents married according to the confarreate ritual, was out of step with the times and that candidates were not available in sufficient numbers as in the past. That kind of marriage, he said, had fallen into disuse or retained by only a few. He gave several reasons for the changes, the main one being not only the indifference of both sexes, but also the outright avoidance of that type of marriage because of the complexity of the ceremony. Another reason was the fact that both the flamen so chosen and the woman who passed under his marital authority were subtracted from the control of the parents. Tiberius concluded that a remedy was needed either through a senate decree or a new law, on the example of Augustus who had adapted to modern requirements many of the rudimentary norms of antiquity. Thus, after a debate on the religious aspects of the matter, it was decided not to change anything relative to the state of the flamen, but a new law was proposed in accordance to which the wife of the flamen was subject to the husband’s jurisdiction within the limits of her religious duties, but otherwise free to live like other women. The son of Maluginensis succeeded to the office of the father. To increase the dignity of priests and render them more zealous in the celebration of the sacred rites, two million sesterces were voted to the vestals Cornelia, chosen to replace Scantia, and the Augusta was given the privilege to sit among the Vestals every time she entered the theater.
XVII.
Cornelio Cethego Visellio Varrone consulibus pontifices eorumque exemplo ceteri sacerdotes, cum pro incolumitate principis vota susciperent, Neronem quoque et Drusum isdem dis commendavere, non tam caritate iuvenum quam adulatione, quae moribus corruptis perinde anceps, si nulla et ubi nimia est. nam Tiberius haud umquam domui Germanici mitis, tum vero aequari adulescentes senectae suae impatienter indoluit accitosque pontifices percontatus est num id precibus Agrippinae aut minis tribuissent. et illi quidem, quamquam abnuerent, modice perstricti; etenim pars magna e propinquis ipsius aut primores civitatis erant: ceterum in senatu oratione monuit in posterum ne quis mobilis adulescentium animos praematuris honoribus ad superbiam extolleret. instabat quippe Seianus incusabatque diductam civitatem ut civili bello: esse qui se partium Agrippinae vocent, ac ni resistatur, fore pluris; neque aliud gliscentis discordiae remedium quam si unus alterve maxime prompti subverterentur.
I7.
Under the consulship of Cornelius Cethegus and Visellius Varro in the new year, the pontiffs and other priests included Nero and Drusus when offering votive prayers for the emperor’s safety to the same deities. Their motive was not so much love for the young princes, but simple adulation, which in times of moral decline can be two-edged, equally dangerous both if omitted or if excessive. Tiberius, in fact, who had rarely shown affection for the house of Germanicus, was deeply hurt that two youngsters were put on equal footing with his mature years. He summoned the pontiffs and enquired of them whether in this matter they had yielded to the solicitations or threats of Agrippina and, even though they firmly answered in the negative, he reproved them only mildly, the majority of them being from his own immediate entourage or leading personalities of the state. Moreover, speaking in the senate, he advised for the future against promoting arrogance in young, susceptible minds with such premature distinctions. In reality, he was pressured by Sejanus, who denounced that the state was rent into two halves, as in civil war. There were those, he said, who declared themselves of the party of Agrippina. If nothing was done, more would do the same. The remedy to halt the discord was no other than to suppress a couple of the more rabid agitators.
XVIII.
Qua causa C. Silium et Titium Sabinum adgreditur. amicitia Germanici perniciosa utrique, Silio et quod ingentis exercitus septem per annos moderator partisque apud Germaniam triumphalibus Sacroviriani belli victor, quanto maiore mole procideret, plus formidinis in alios dispergebatur. credebant plerique auctam offensionem ipsius intemperantia, immodice iactantis snum militem in obsequio duravisse cum alii ad seditiones prolaberentur; neque mansurum Tiberio imperium si iis quoque legionibus cupido novandi fuisset. destrui per haec fortunam suam Caesar imparemque tanto merito rebatur. nam beneficia eo usque laeta sunt dum videntur exolvi posse: ubi multum antevenere pro gratia odium redditur.
18.
Consequently, Sejanus closed in on Gaius Silius and Titius Sabinus, whose attachment to Germanicus was ruinous to both. In respect to Silius, the very fact that for seven years he had been in command of a large army in Germany, earning the triumphal insignia and later defeating Sacrovir, made his fall all the more resounding the greater the stature of the man and was to be a dire warning to all others. It was believed that the danger Silius was in had been aggravated by his own poor judgment by boasting that his soldiers had remained obedient when others were sliding into sedition and that Tiberius would have lost the empire had his legions also nurtured a desire for change. These views were seen by Tiberius as detrimental to his position, leaving it incapable to repay such merits. Being at the receiving end of benefits is fine as long as they are judged repayable: when they go beyond that point, hatred replaces gratitude.
XIX.
Erat uxor Silio Sosia Galla, caritate Agrippinae invisa principi. hos corripi dilato ad tempus Sabino placitum, immissusque Varro consul qui paternas inimicitias obtendens odiis Seiani per dedecus suum gratifcabatur. precante reo brevem moram, dum accusator consulatu abiret, adversatus est Caesar: solitum quippe magistratibus diem privatis dicere: nec infringendum consulis ius, cuius vigiliis niteretur ne quod res publica detrimentum caperet. proprium id Tiberio fuit scelera nuper reperta priscis verbis obtegere. igitur multa adseveratione, quasi aut legibus cum Silio ageretur aut Varro consul aut illud res publica esset, coguntur patres, silente reo, vel si defensionem coeptaret, non occultante cuius ira premeretur. conscientia belli Sacrovir diu dissimulatus, victoria per avaritiam foedata et uxor socia arguebantur. nec dubie repetundarum criminibus haerebant, sed cuncta quaestione maiestatis exercita, et Silius imminentem damnationem voluntario fine praevertit.
19.
Silius’ wife Sosia Galla was hated by the emperor because of her deep devotion to Agrippina. It was decided to direct the attack against both Silius and Sabinus, but to spare the latter for a while. Free rein was given to the consul Varro, who under the pretext of avenging his father, turned himself into a tool for humoring Sejanus’ resentments at the expense of his own honor. Silius asked for a short postponement to allow Varro’s term of office to expire, but Tiberius opposed his veto, saying it was quite usual for a magistrate to call private citizens to account and that no interference must be tolerated with this prerogative of a consul, ‘whose vigilance ensured that the state should suffer no injury. It was typical of Tiberius to cloak newfangled abuses of power in ancient stock phrases. With severe solemnity, therefore, the senate was ordered into session, as if Silius was being tried according to real laws, Varro was a real consul, or Tiberius’ regime a legitimate government. The defendant kept silent and even if he attempted some sort of defense he made it clear whose malevolence he was the victim. The charges were that the doings of Sacrovir were kept concealed too long because of Silius’ collusion with the rebels, that the victory was tainted by his cupidity, and that his wife was his accomplice in malpractice. No doubt, both were too deeply entangled in the charges of extortion, but the whole trial was centered on the imputation of treason, and the inevitable verdict was avoided by Silius’ suicide.
XX.
Saevitum tamen in bona, non ut stipendiariis pecuniae redderentur, quorum nemo repetebat, sed liberalitas Augusti avulsa, computatis singillatim quae fisco petebantur. ea prima Tiberio erga pecuniam alienam diligentia fuit. Sosia in exilium pellitur Asinii Galli sententia, qui partem bonorum publicandam, pars ut liberis relinqueretur censuerat. contra M’. Lepidus quartam accusatoribus secundum necessitudinem legis, cetera liberis concessit. hunc ego Lepidum temporibus illis gravem et sapientem virum fuisse comperior: nam pleraque ab saevis adulationibus aliorum in melius flexit. neque tamen temperamenti egebat, cum acquabili auctoritate et gratia apud Tiberium viguerit. unde dubitare cogor fato et sorte nascendi, ut cetera, ita principum inclinatio in hos, offensio in illos, an sit aliquid in nostris consiliis liceatque inter abruptam contumaciam et deforme obsequium pergere iter ambitione ac periculis vacuum. at Messalinus Cotta haud minus claris maioribus sed animo diversus censuit cavendum senatus consulto, ut quamquam insontes magistratus et culpae alienae nescii provincialibus uxorum criminibus proinde quam suis plecterentur.
20.
Notwithstanding Silius’ voluntary exit, his property was brutally savaged, not in order to refund any money to the provincial taxpayers — none of whom in fact had come forward with a claim — but to strip it of all the rewards Silius had received from Augustus and transfer them to the imperial exchequer, together with what was owed to the fiscus, counted item for item. That was the first time Tiberius paid close attention to property other than his own. Sosia was sent into exile on the proposal of Asinius Gallus, who had suggested a partial confiscation of the estate, leaving the rest to the children. Instead, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus assigned a quarter to the accusers, as required by law, and what was left to the heirs. I find that this Lepidus, considering the times, was an honest and reasonable man, who often managed to moderate the asperity, motivated by servility, of others. Yet he did not lack circumspection, since he retained to the end his position of influence and favor with Tiberius. This fact induces me to question whether, as with all else in this world, the goodwill of princes towards some and their aversion towards others are the whim of fate or the good or bad fortune of living, or whether there is something in the decisions we make whereby we can steer a path through life between obdurate opposition and abject servility, free from intrigues and dangers. Be that as it may, Messalinus Cotta, the equal of Lepidus as to ancestry, but of altogether different temperament, proposed that a senate decree be passed that would stipulate the punishment of any officials for the crimes committed in the provinces by their wives, as if they were their own, regardless of their own innocence in and unawareness of such crimes.